Poll: What percentage of music you listen to is what you've created?

[Bombadil]

Far less than I used to. The person with whom I recorded most of my music died in 2011. At that time, I was remixing our old cassette recordings in Logic, and I was certainly a bit gobsmacked at how good it sounded with judicious use of compression and one less tape generation for the stereo mix-down. He died when I was around 6 songs into the process. I haven't been able to go near those tapes, since.

[harryupbabble]

I hardly listen to my music collection made by other famous "songwriting" people anymore (Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, etc.)
I listen even less to the so-called songs that I made. No time. Plus, they are terrible. Not proper songs. Bad lyrics, bad music.

I mostly play speed scrabble now. Sometimes, it would be the other way around and I would spend more time trying to make songs than play speed scrabble. It flip flops. When waiting for someone to join my game, I do things like examine notations of pop songs.
I learn how many lyric lines there usually are in a verse. Et cetera. It all seems to be formula. And everything is in blocks and subdivisions.

It seems that making music is learnable but making lyrics is another matter. Structures of lyrics is learnable but content of lyrics is not? I think xoxos has a lyrics generator but it's "too random" and there is no "grammar" in that software. There really are no great software to assist in making "proper" lyrics? I Googled "grammar correctors" once. I couldn't find a free one.

That's probably why there are so many music-makers but much much much less lyricists here? I guess KVR is not really a songwriting site. Duh. Yup, uh-huh, here, even less are lyricist/melodyist in one person, also known as "songwriter". Here, there are only really two that write songs "a lot"? Wagtunes and Donkey Tugger? Oh wait, I almost forgot Nine Of Kings. He's kind of a prolific songwriter too?

Songwriters are rare? Less than one percent of the world's population are songwriters? Total guess there. But definitely, they are freaks?

Oops what was the topic again? Sorry, it's hard to stay on topic. Scatter-brain here.

[vurt]

Wagtunes and Donkey Tugger? Oh wait, I almost forgot Nine Of Kings. But definitely, they are freaks?

harsh.
but fair.

[pljones]

Radio... well, I get four hours a week but we'll skip that.

I spend about 6 hours recording music, you're not counting that.

I'll probably spend about the same again mixing recordings down, of which about a third would be listening to masters and the compressed versions.

I probably spend on average 1-2 hours listening to my purchased music collection. Often none. Sometimes more.

Every now and then, I'll dig out one of the tracks I worked on - some of them bear a few listens. (Sometimes I'll then go back and remix the track, of course...)

[CircuitEYE]

I hear my music enough when recording and mixing it.
I will then take some time off from it to get a clear perspective.

[BONES]

It will depend slightly on what you call "listening to music". If you are talking about listening to music for pleasure, then the answer would be never for me. I simply can't listen to it without my "world's harshest critic" hat on. Which isn't to say I don't like listening to it, it's just that I can't help listening to hear what's wrong with it, which kind of spoils it a bit. The only time I think I really enjoyed it was the first time I listened to our last album on CD in the car, after only having heard it as mp3s previously. The difference was incredible. It sounded so much better I honestly couldn't believe it because with other people's music, I don't really notice at all. So being critical can sometimes work in your favour.

[Tj Shredder]

What the hell is radio? Or do you mean internet? I guess what you mean is listening just to listen to music and not let you distract you by doing something else at the same time...
Mainly I listen that way in concerts, my own music mainly while playing it. I rarely release something, because it sucks compared to live improvisation. Though if I get to listen to a recording of me improvising I usually think it could be released as well though not being the „real“ thing...

[BONES]

Sucks how? Sucks because it doesn't sound as good or sucks because you don't enjoy the experience as much? Personally, I hate improvisation. When I go to see a band I want to hear the songs the way I know them, not whichever way an artist might want to play them on the night because they've become bored with doing it the way people expect. That's not to say I expect them to sound exactly the same, we tweak our old songs fairly regularly, but I don't want a three minute solo in the middle of the song that's not on the recorded version.

Actually, I heard a really good example yesterday - I got John Watts' (Fischer Z) live recording from Rockpalast in 1982 and in his most recognisable song, So Long, the bass player (who wasn't the guy who recorded the original) plays an entirely different riff that sounds nothing like the original that everyone would have been there to hear. I find that kind of thing very contemptuous of the audience. If you're bored with playing the same song every night, then leave it off your setlist for a while. Simples.

[Tj Shredder]

Sucks how? Sucks because it doesn't sound as good or sucks because you don't enjoy the experience as much? Personally, I hate improvisation. When I go to see a band I want to hear the songs the way I know them, not whichever way an artist might want to play them on the night because they've become bored with doing it the way people expect. That's not to say I expect them to sound exactly the same, we tweak our old songs fairly regularly, but I don't want a three minute solo in the middle of the song that's not on the recorded version.

If you're bored with playing the same song every night, then leave it off your setlist for a while. Simplest.

A recording of an inspired improvisation sucks compared to the real event (the magic moment its created). It misses most of the context which is the space the audience the athmosphere...
So I am the opposite in terms of expectations for a good performance to you. If I know the piece, I‘d love to hear variations and a different interpretation. If its too close to the conserved version I get bored, I could have that at home...

As performer I want to be surprised myself. Playing the same piece in the same manner again and again isn‘t that interesting, so I always follow your advice to leave it off - whats a setlist btw ?

[Lotuzia]

I'd say 10%. I listen to a lot of music, for my pleasure, or my inspiration. There's so much good music to discover, rediscover, love. I listen a lot to tracks I've been associated with, or my own too. But yeah, less than 10%.

[DJ Warmonger]

Quite a lot. Especially now that I create good music more frequently.

As a DJ, though, I have a habit of listening as much of new music as possible and compulsively gather music libraries for further sets (which I rarely recorded now ).

[BONES]

A recording of an inspired improvisation sucks compared to the real event (the magic moment its created). It misses most of the context which is the space the audience the athmosphere…

But that's true of pretty much any live performance, you don't need an improvisation to make it special.

If its too close to the conserved version I get bored, I could have that at home...

Then you are going to see the wrong bands or going for the wrong reasons. I kind of agree with what Andy Partridge from XTC once said about remixes and 12" versions. He said that the version they presented on their albums was the best version they could come up with and that making any different versions would be like Da Vinci making different versions of the Mona Lisa for different moods - one with her laughing, another with her crying, etc. It sounds pretentious but the reality is that we work our arses off trying to make every song we produce sound exactly how we want it to sound. If we got up on stage and did it another way, it would be a dilution of our original intent, which seems like a kind of betrayal of our own purposes.

Maybe it comes down to whether or not the song is important to you, or whether you see it merely as a tool you use to achieve a different end. To me the song is paramount and all the work I put in is to make it as good as possible. So changing it around is not something I would do just because I was bored.

The other thing which might be different to you is that, with a few very notable exceptions, I don't rate musicianship at all. I certainly don't care at all how difficult a piece is or how technically impressive someone's playing might be. In fact, it can be quite the opposite, a technically good performance often leaves me cold, where a sloppy but enthusiastic one can be awesome.

As performer I want to be surprised myself.

That's a level of self-indulgence I don't allow myself. Live performance isn't about me, it's about the audience and the music. If the audience are engaged, it is impossible not to feel energised by their reaction. My role is to facilitate that, not to look for ways to get anything out of it myself. Those rewards will come if I get it right.

[vurt]

cant really comment on percentage, but lately when not working on music i seem to be listening to a fair bit of bluegrass, appalachean folk and jugbands.

[donkey tugger]

cant really comment on percentage, but lately when not working on music i seem to be listening to a fair bit of bluegrass, appalachean folk and jugbands.

Folkie wanker.

[vurt]

it would be hard for me to argue, given the above evidence.
and obviously your intimate knowledge of said music, a man who plays a 12 string, a mandolin and ive even heard banjo, well it would be churlish not to bow to your expertise
folkie c**t.